wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 13:34:03 GMT
Maybe that's what the thing boils down to then. Violation of sportsmanship rules whereby non-players aren't allowed to get involved with discussions regarding the outcome of a game, even if they are a team captain trying to organise that their team catch their plane back home?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 13:35:09 GMT
Maybe that's what the thing boils down to then. Violation of sportsmanship rules whereby non-players aren't allowed to get involved with discussions regarding the outcome of a game, even if they are a team captain trying to organise that their team catch their plane back home? That is what makes the most sense to me.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 13:48:26 GMT
I still feel like there must be more to it though. The whole enquiry by the WTC committee and the hard "We are intentionally being vague to prevent public naming and shaming for the protection of everyone involved" line just for the crime of "The team captain wasn't allowed to get involved with the discussion of the conclusion of the disputed game"? Seems completely out of proportion for what seems to me to be a very minor issue. So I'm not convinced.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Oct 11, 2017 13:48:37 GMT
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 14:02:41 GMT
Where he states that nobody from their team has been interviewed, despite the WTC claiming that they interviewed all the parties involved in their post-issue enquiry. And that they still have no idea why the WTC ruled the way they did. Pretty strange.
I get the idea that to protect the privacy of those involved, the WTC don't want to make the issue public. But it seems very odd to not inform the people who are actually penalised about why they were penalised.
It's a bit like if the courts issue someone with a fine. When the person asks why, the courts say "We can't tell you that, but trust us, it's a good reason".
And a bunch of other people come out and say "We know, and we can't tell you either, privacy and stuff, but just go with it, it's the right call".
I'm sure it probably makes sense to everyone who actually do know, but not telling Norway, who were the ones penalised, seems... very un-legally fair.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 14:04:55 GMT
It would really help if the WTC just came out and said what it was the Head Judge was called about, this thing is such a bloody mess
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 14:16:49 GMT
Apparently the official line is still that the head judge was called because there was disagreement about whether the Norwegian refusal of the France concession and the subsequent game resolution were the right way to handle the situation or not.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 14:20:36 GMT
Apparently the official line is still that the head judge was called because there was disagreement about whether the Norwegian refusal of the France concession and the subsequent game resolution were the right way to handle the situation or not. That seems so backward
'you did not accept a concession and take the easy win, but you still went on to win, so you now lose'
If that is the case that makes absolutely no sense
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 11, 2017 14:31:12 GMT
What a mess...
I don't know Jarle beyong his battle reports and his texts but even if he comes out as a bit of a drama Queen the disparity between someone exposing himself and the courtain drawn on the other side makes me believe there was Firetruck-up and this is now damage control.
It's a big loss for a diminishing community if a blog with 564 battle reports started on November 2015 ends based on hearsay.
I'd like to hear the France team, are they speaking anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by skathrex on Oct 11, 2017 14:33:56 GMT
The Problem is, now it's just a giant clusterFiretruck.
When both sides say something different there is no way in knowing what is the truth without beeing there.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 14:37:59 GMT
The Problem is, now it's just a giant clusterFiretruck. When both sides say something different there is no way in knowing what is the truth without beeing there. A naked man has few secrets, a flayed man none. We are left with no alternative but to torture the parties involved until we get the truth dammit!
I see no reasonable alternative.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 15:03:32 GMT
I'd like to hear the France team, are they speaking anywhere? Not that I have seen. Which I think is part of the point. The WTC doesn't want anyone to speak about it at all, so France are basically doing it right and Norway are in violation of their implicit NDA, from the WTC perspective. Which is maybe why the WTC aren't talking to Norway. Because they know that if they tell them the issue, Norway will blab about it. I dunno. The problem with insisting on transparency is that it implies that nobody has any right to privacy about issues. And it's only easy to think that if it doesn't affect you personally.
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Oct 11, 2017 15:21:33 GMT
The problem with insisting on transparency is that it implies that nobody has any right to privacy about issues. And it's only easy to think that if it doesn't affect you personally. Had that transparency not been used to spam social media thereby painting a particular picture and pressurise the committee into a favourable ruling, I'd have a good deal more sympathy. As it is, I don't feel the Kremlinology approach is going to be especially fruitful.
|
|
bacon
Junior Strategist
Posts: 134
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 15:33:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by bacon on Oct 11, 2017 15:33:28 GMT
I'd like to hear the France team, are they speaking anywhere? Not that I have seen. Which I think is part of the point. The WTC doesn't want anyone to speak about it at all, so France are basically doing it right and Norway are in violation of their implicit NDA, from the WTC perspective. Which is maybe why the WTC aren't talking to Norway. Because they know that if they tell them the issue, Norway will blab about it. I dunno. The problem with insisting on transparency is that it implies that nobody has any right to privacy about issues. And it's only easy to think that if it doesn't affect you personally. Wait, does the WTC really make it's participants sign an NDA?
|
|
|
Post by gribble on Oct 11, 2017 15:42:42 GMT
Wait, does the WTC really make it's participants sign an NDA? I assume not, due to use of the word "implicit". Which is of course nonsense - the very concept of an NDA is that it's an explicit agreement between parties. There is no such thing as a "implicit NDA".
|
|